Parasomnia Timeline Thread

[HOF]

It's a shame though, because they ended up throwing out the baby (the positive contributions from the outside producer who really did give them a great sound and unique direction on FII) with the bathwater (the label interference which delayed the album and restricted it to a single disc).

IMO DT benefitted greatly from outside producers in their early career (as have many bands, so it's a shame they were so opposed to it), and have never been especially good at self producing.

[illusionist]

What exactly do you think would be different/better if they had an outside producer for their albums?

Oh, and

https://www.instagram.com/p/DAURUweP-3R/?igsh=cGFqYTlna3JlM3d0

[HOF]

What exactly do you think would be different/better if they had an outside producer for their albums?

Oh, and

https://www.instagram.com/p/DAURUweP-3R/?igsh=cGFqYTlna3JlM3d0

I won't say better, but I think outside producers could help them refine their songwriting, give their recordings more depth, and perhaps rein in some of their more indulgent tendencies. Sometimes it's good to have a critical outside ear telling you no, or encouraging you to explore something that you might not instinctively try on your own. Now, a producer can muck things up too sometimes, so I can't say for sure that DT would be better or worse with an outside producer. And I don't think they need one in the strict technical sense. They are capable of writing, arranging, and recording high quality music on their own. But for my money, I do still think the earlier, outside produced albums are the strongest in their catalog (only my opinion of course).

[gborland]

An outside producer would have trimmed all the fat in BC&SL and made it a much better album.

Remember also that without an external producer we would not have had the WOOAAAH-OH-OH singalong part in Learning To Live! 

[MirrorMask]

I won't say better, but I think outside producers could help them refine their songwriting, give their recordings more depth, and perhaps rein in some of their more indulgent tendencies. Sometimes it's good to have a critical outside ear telling you no, or encouraging you to explore something that you might not instinctively try on your own. Now, a producer can muck things up too sometimes, so I can't say for sure that DT would be better or worse with an outside producer.

An outside producer would have trimmed all the fat in BC&SL and made it a much better album.

Remember also that without an external producer we would not have had the WOOAAAH-OH-OH singalong part in Learning To Live! 

I agree with all of this, especially about Black Clouds and Silver Linings; remember all the discussions about what to do with the "growling" part of Nightmare? that would have been precisely a producer's job to offer a suggestion to how best work out that section.

And wow, didn't know about Learning to Live!!! 

And since FII was recently mentioned... I happen to agree with most of Kevin Shirley's decision. Yes, Burning My Soul works better as a straight up rocker without having to meander away in the middle for the sake of being prog, and let's not forget the unintended lucky consequence of removing what we know as the first half of Hell's Kitchen - they wrote the second half to tie it into Lines in the Sand which is the best part of the song!

Also, while it is no masterpiece, if you really want to have an easy, more "commercial" song, You Not Me is catchier than You or Me. Nobody cared about the song, but if there is a world where that song becomes a minor hit... it's You Not Me that would have made it, NOT You or Me.

[CraftyCaleb2483]

The reason they had something to prove was because of FII.

Where's the dislike button?!  

[gborland]

Also, while it is no masterpiece, if you really want to have an easy, more "commercial" song, You Not Me is catchier than You or Me. Nobody cared about the song, but if there is a world where that song becomes a minor hit... it's You Not Me that would have made it, NOT You or Me.

Totally. You Not Me is a brilliantly catchy song.

[RoeDent]

That's a strange, random question.  Who are you asking?  And why does it matter?

I'm asking everyone, and it's an extremely pertinent question after Jordan Rudess doubled down on his advocation of AI recently. It is the great moral dilemma of our time, and it cannot be swept under the rug.

[WilliamMunny]

I'm asking everyone, and it's an extremely pertinent question after Jordan Rudess doubled down on his advocation of AI recently. It is the great moral dilemma of our time, and it cannot be swept under the rug.

It's definitely a topic that has been on my mind.

Unfortunately, like most 'important' questions, my answer will likely always be, "it depends."

I'm of two minds: AI (not unlike any number of previous advancements) is going to unfold how it unfolds whether I like it or not. Yes, it is it's own animal, but the spirit of this conversation in relation to music is not dissimilar to, say, the conversation that developed around the prevalence of synths, or music videos, or sampling in Hip Hop.

There were initial detractors, early adopters, and within a generation, the issue tended to sort itself out.

That all being said, as an artist and musician (like most of the rest of you reading this), AI feels like a step too far (for me).

As many of you know (and as I've hinted to in previous posts), there was a decision made (involving AI artwork) during the recent release of an album I was involved with making that is still not sitting right with me. In fact, I feel more strongly now than I did a year ago.

So, in that regard, I feel like my stance is solidifying.

Using Chat GPT to cheat on a history test?...meh. Using an AI engine to generate album art?...lame. Using an AI engine to generate chord progressions, lyrics, and other creative elements?...yeah, I'm out.

Rudess has been a strong and articulate proponent of technology for years, including AI, so as it pertains to Dream Theater: even if they announce that they used AI to 'write' with (which I sincerely doubt), I would absolutely give the album/band a chance to make their case.

After all, it's difficult to really know how one will feel about something until it occurs (see my example above).

But, as it stands now, "it depends." If the band uses AI in some sort of promotional effort or artwork generation, I will likely roll my eyes and still be a day one buyer. If they use AI to play a solo or sing a harmony, I'm probably going to be a bit more dismissive of the results.

That all said, I'm staring down the barrel at 50, so the last thing I'm going to do is sit here and wallow in the negative side of 'what if?"

Dream Theater, a band I've been listening to for damn near 40 years, has a NEW record coming out with Mike Portnoy back on drums–I'm beyond excited and am going to focus on that and that alone (because it's a feeling that only gets more rare with each passing year).

[TAC]

I'm asking everyone, and it's an extremely pertinent question after Jordan Rudess doubled down on his advocation of AI recently. It is the great moral dilemma of our time, and it cannot be swept under the rug.

I don't know if "doubling down" is an accurate description of what he says in the article. It seems the tool he is using is used AFTER you upload "Dream Theater's music" and it's used for track separating, and editing. Perhaps behind the scenes, it's built on some AI thingy but it's a tool that replaces more manual jobs.

[gborland]

I don't know if it's a thing, but using AI to craft sounds and tones feels like a great idea.

"Give me a spooky synth pad."
"Make it a bit more vibrate-y."
"Add a hint of a bell in the high notes."

It beats endless fiddling with knobs to try and get the sound you want.

[Zydar]

Maybe I'm just old school but I am strongly against using AI to create art. I want art to be created by actual people, the human element is a big part of what makes art great and relatable IMHO #manyellingatclouds

[Rob24]

It's definitely a topic that has been on my mind.

Unfortunately, like most 'important' questions, my answer will likely always be, "it depends."

I'm of two minds: AI (not unlike any number of previous advancements) is going to unfold how it unfolds whether I like it or not. Yes, it is it's own animal, but the spirit of this conversation in relation to music is not dissimilar to, say, the conversation that developed around the prevalence of synths, or music videos, or sampling in Hip Hop.

There were initial detractors, early adopters, and within a generation, the issue tended to sort itself out.

That all being said, as an artist and musician (like most of the rest of you reading this), AI feels like a step too far (for me).

As many of you know (and as I've hinted to in previous posts), there was a decision made (involving AI artwork) during the recent release of an album I was involved with making that is still not sitting right with me. In fact, I feel more strongly now than I did a year ago.

So, in that regard, I feel like my stance is solidifying.

Using Chat GPT to cheat on a history test?...meh. Using an AI engine to generate album art?...lame. Using an AI engine to generate chord progressions, lyrics, and other creative elements?...yeah, I'm out.

Rudess has been a strong and articulate proponent of technology for years, including AI, so as it pertains to Dream Theater: even if they announce that they used AI to 'write' with (which I sincerely doubt), I would absolutely give the album/band a chance to make their case.

After all, it's difficult to really know how one will feel about something until it occurs (see my example above).

But, as it stands now, "it depends." If the band uses AI in some sort of promotional effort or artwork generation, I will likely roll my eyes and still be a day one buyer. If they use AI to play a solo or sing a harmony, I'm probably going to be a bit more dismissive of the results.

That all said, I'm staring down the barrel at 50, so the last thing I'm going to do is sit here and wallow in the negative side of 'what if?"

Dream Theater, a band I've been listening to for damn near 40 years, has a NEW record coming out with Mike Portnoy back on drums–I'm beyond excited and am going to focus on that and that alone (because it's a feeling that only gets more rare with each passing year).

I think with Jordan and Dream Theater's music we really don't have to worry too much about it. He's using it for some technological intricacies that have to do with seperating tracks and I guess with sounds and samples.
I'm 100% sure they won't use it as a creative tool to generate anything. Don't think there is any big dilemma to be expected yet.

What I found pretty interesting is for example the new Eminem album. He also didn't use generative AI, but an AI voice filter nevertheless. He rapped the parts himself and then put an AI voice filter over it to make it approximate the voice of his older material that he has lost.

And I'm pretty conflicted about that to be honest. Firstly, it doesn't sound very good, you hear audio artefacts all the time, it sometimes almost sounds very much like those bad Youtube AI versions of his songs you can find pretty easily.
Now, there's not REALLY a moral reason to be upset, as it is his own voice from his older recordings and IF someone should have the right to use his likeness here, it's him of course, especially from a legal perspective.

But from an art-perspective it's still pretty off-putting to me, given I expected a full album of his normal modern voice, it also portrays a certain dissatisfaction with how he sounds nowadays and using AI to achieve something that he can't anymore. I don't know, it's not something I expected (given Eminem is someone who used to criticize singers for using autotune) and it kinda paints the whole release in a bad light for me.

[WilliamMunny]

I think with Jordan and Dream Theater's music we really don't have to worry too much about it. He's using it for some technological intricacies that have to do with seperating tracks and I guess with sounds and samples.
I'm 100% sure they won't use it as a creative tool to generate anything. Don't think there is any big dilemma to be expected yet.

What I found pretty interesting is for example the new Eminem album. He also didn't use generative AI, but an AI voice filter nevertheless. He rapped the parts himself and then put an AI voice filter over it to make it approximate the voice of his older material that he has lost.

And I'm pretty conflicted about that to be honest. Firstly, it doesn't sound very good, you hear audio artefacts all the time, it sometimes almost sounds very much like those bad Youtube AI versions of his songs you can find pretty easily.
Now, there's not REALLY a moral reason to be upset, as it is his own voice from his older recordings and IF someone should have the right to use his likeness here, it's him of course, especially from a legal perspective.

But from an art-perspective it's still pretty off-putting to me, given I expected a full album of his normal modern voice, it also portrays a certain dissatisfaction with how he sounds nowadays and using AI to achieve something that he can't anymore. I don't know, it's not something I expected (given Eminem is someone who used to criticize singers for using autotune) and it kinda paints the whole release in a bad light for me.

Really good points there...I think, with Eminem specifically, he lost me somewhere from day one (just can't get behind the glorification of violence against women in any context)

[efx]

The issue for me is less of what it can do (which still isn't as great as a human doing it, especially in anything art related.) but the ethics or lack thereof in where some of these companies get their training models from. And of course the energy resource hog it represents at a time where perhaps this isn't what we should be doing.

At work (gamedev) we use internal tools like this but it's all trained on our own data.

[CraftyCaleb2483]

I don't know if it's a thing, but using AI to craft sounds and tones feels like a great idea.

"Give me a spooky synth pad."
"Make it a bit more vibrate-y."
"Add a hint of a bell in the high notes."

It beats endless fiddling with knobs to try and get the sound you want.

The 'endless fiddling' with the knobs is part of the fun! And in doing so you could find a much better sound than you thought of.

Maybe I'm just old school but I am strongly against using AI to create art. I want art to be created by actual people, the human element is a big part of what makes art great and relatable IMHO #manyellingatclouds

Yeah me too

[Schurftkut]

weren't those two sick guitarists playing something generated by Omnisphere on guitars? THeir name escapes me but something with God Song was the track i'm talking about.

[hefdaddy42]

Where's the dislike button?!  

Nothing to dislike.  It's a fact.  Their career was heading in a generally positive direction, and then FII was an obstacle in a lot of ways.  They were in trouble, and needed to knock the next album out of the park, or they would have been pretty much over.  They brought forth SFAM, and the rest is history.

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

Nothing to dislike.  It's a fact.  Their career was heading in a generally positive direction, and then FII was an obstacle in a lot of ways.  They were in trouble, and needed to knock the next album out of the park, or they would have been pretty much over.  They brought forth SFAM, and the rest is history.

Yup. And what's really interesting/intriguing to me is that Mike has compared that moment to the present one.

[bosk1]

I'm not sure I see any "moral dilemma" in using AI.  Depending on how it was used, I might likely role my eyes and think "well, that was stupid."  But that is a far cry from being any sort of moral dilemma.  To answer the question:  I don't know what I would think.  The fact of the use of AI in and of itself does not tell me anything that would impact what I would think.  The issue is whether it is used effectively and I like what it brings to the table.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, it doesn't.  I suspect that if it is used, it will be somewhere in the middle where I would be pretty neutral about it.  But, again, I don't know until I hear the album.  I can't decide whether I like something, or how I feel about it, until I have heard it.

[Zydar]

SFAM was a "make or break" album for them at a crucial moment. 

[CraftyCaleb2483]

Nothing to dislike.  It's a fact.  Their career was heading in a generally positive direction, and then FII was an obstacle in a lot of ways.  They were in trouble, and needed to knock the next album out of the park, or they would have been pretty much over.  They brought forth SFAM, and the rest is history.

I can't deny that they needed a big boost in terms of economics and other things, but all I'm saying is that they proved themselves musically very well with that album!

[efx]

I'm not sure I see any "moral dilemma" in using AI.  Depending on how it was used, I might likely role my eyes and think "well, that was stupid."  But that is a far cry from being any sort of moral dilemma.  To answer the question:  I don't know what I would think.  The fact of the use of AI in and of itself does not tell me anything that would impact what I would think.  The issue is whether it is used effectively and I like what it brings to the table.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, it doesn't.  I suspect that if it is used, it will be somewhere in the middle where I would be pretty neutral about it.  But, again, I don't know until I hear the album.  I can't decide whether I like something, or how I feel about it, until I have heard it.

The moral dilemma for me isn't in the results but how the training sets are gotten by these companies.
Personal opinion here, if DT, or indeed any artist uses it in a way that screws artists over the way stability/midjourney etc is blatantly copping to then I'm out as a fan.

[Stadler]

Chicks with eight fingers are hot. 

[CraftyCaleb2483]

Chicks with eight fingers are hot. 

[Stadler]

AI has benefits, it has limitations.  There are a plethora of photos on the social media sites of (supposedly) hot people - male, female, celebrity, non-celebrity - and you can frequently tell which ones are AI-generated, because for some reason it doesn't do hands/fingers well. That often translates into weird hands, or too many/oddly shaped fingers.

My point was that it does a lot of things well, but it's not perfect, and it has to ultimately be shaped by a human for it to be truly convincing. IMO. 

[HOF]

I'm asking everyone, and it's an extremely pertinent question after Jordan Rudess doubled down on his advocation of AI recently. It is the great moral dilemma of our time, and it cannot be swept under the rug.

Having read Jordan's comments in the interview, I have zero issue with what he's doing. I agree the term AI is misleading and not all of the criticisms apply to all applications of it. If the fear is that people will just write a prompt and AI spits out a song and call it art, sure that's a problem. There are probably thousands of other applications though which might be nothing like that. It's really just a question of your honesty.

He also does deal with the artists rights issues and stuff, and maybe he's being a bit glib to say "that's not my area," I guess one thing I would say is that I'm not sure there is a moral difference between AI being trained on the works of thousands of artists and those artists literally being trained on the works of thousands of artists. But I can see there being an issue to the extent that existing copyrights are being abused.

All that to say, to the extent the technology exists and can be wielded by an artist as a tool, I don't inherently have a problem with an artist using that tool as part of their own creative process or expression.

[MirrorMask]

If the fear is that people will just write a prompt and AI spits out a song and call it art, sure that's a problem.

Why do you think we don't have any info about the new album yet? they're still figuring out the correct prompt to write 'cause they always get a 4/4 time signature!

 

[Trav]

Has anyone seen this or mentioned it yet? I just saw it on Reddit....


Mike Portnoy said on a interview to a Brazilian site:
"We are getting ready now because this new tour is going to be quite long throughout 2025. And it will be in two phases.
The first phase will be looking back at the last 40 years, and the next phase will be when we release the new album and we will be looking forward."
By my understanding, the new album will be released only at the end of the first phase.

[devieira73]

Yes, this interview: https://www.tramamos.com.br/entrevista-dream-theater-mike-portnoy/
Well, not much novelty, but it seems even more confirmed that there won't be any new songs at least this year nor the US tour.

[emtee]

Hopefully I'm not dead before the release.

[Trav]

Hopefully I'm not dead before the release.

You and me both brother.

[OpenYourEyes311]

Has anyone seen this or mentioned it yet? I just saw it on Reddit....


Mike Portnoy said on a interview to a Brazilian site:
"We are getting ready now because this new tour is going to be quite long throughout 2025. And it will be in two phases.
The first phase will be looking back at the last 40 years, and the next phase will be when we release the new album and we will be looking forward."
By my understanding, the new album will be released only at the end of the first phase.

Honestly, I love this. I do wish that the tour had happened sooner than a year after the MP announcement, but I understand they wanted to write the album first, so they could focus solely on touring the next couple years. But I think this is what a lot of fans wanted in the first place. A kind of WELCOME BACK tour with MP, then a new album and tour. This makes me pumped for the 40th tour.

[brakkum]

Still kind of miffed they wouldn't have just done some touring earlier, pretty crazy we're already coming up on a year since the announcement of his return, but I get it.

[Schurftkut]

kinda makes sense to keep releasing new info during the tour, so ticket sales might get boosted?